admin_level 5 is district boundary.. Hence the change to match a district. Anyway, just decide whether this or relation/10371838 is the district and fix the admin_levels and wikidata links accordingly. And if possible fix the wikipedia links as well

Hi, the Itanagar capital complex district was a proposed district and not an actual district. The fact that it has not made it to https://lgdirectory.gov.in/ and it has not been in the Arunachal District reorganization act - https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/11345/1/the_arunachal_pradesh_%28reorganisation_of_districts%29_act_1980_as_amended.pdf is proof for that. I am going to wait a little for any counter arguments, otherwise I am going to go ahead and delete the relation. Thanks

this edit broke multiple existing admin boundaries.. including the district ones.. please fix or revert?

ignore the previous one.. found the source at http://delimitation.lsgkerala.gov.in/map

Is Bing the source for the change in district boundary? I am looking at bharatmaps.gov.in , it has the old district boundary.

please put back boundary=administrative tag for Malkangiri relation, it is used to identify district boundaries.

please put back "boundary"="administrative" tag on the Koraput relationship.. it is what people use to identify it as a district boundary.. i think.

This removes the Sadar taluk boundaries in the Varanasi district.. Can you please revert?